Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:17:50 +0100 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: ->pid in filesystem code |
| |
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:12:38PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > cifs: > > apparently uses current->pid to keep track of locking. This might > mean that the current implementation is actually getting things very > wrong, at least from the Unix semantics. Locking happens on process > basis. I count 11 uses of ->pid, all suspicious. Using this > filesystem with NPTL seems to be risky in the moment.
s/with NPTL//. I'm fairly certain that fs/cifs went into the tree without a review and what's more, in this case I have very strong suspicion that it might have been deliberately obfuscated to scare potential reviewers off. Whatever the cause might be, the code *is* obfuscated enough to make it very hard to review and it certainly contains a lot of dubious stuff.
> intermezzo: > > Wow, don't know where to start. A gazillion uses of ->pid. Some are > print statements but there are others where the value is assigned to > elements of some internal data structures. I think I would strongly > suggest to avoid this filesystem when using NPTL until it is clear > that there are no issues.
intermezzo needs a serious rewrite before it will be usable in 2.6. Authors had promised to do something about it, but so far it hadn't reached the Linus' tree. > umsdos: > > The pid seems to be used for some kind of locking. Might be that > using ->pid is correct here. In that case it needs comments.
Doesn't even build. Will need a rewrite or removal - it had been rotting for a *long* time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |